The fable of state self-control

Abstract

Trait self-control is highly valued, often equated with moral righteousness and associated with numerous positive life outcomes. This paper challenges the conventional conflation of trait self-control and state self-control. We suggest that while trait self-control is consistently linked to success, state self-control is not the causal mechanism driving these benefits. Trait self-control, sometimes also referred to as conscientiousness, grit, and the ability to delay gratification, predicts better health, wealth, and academic achievement. Conventional wisdom has it that people high in trait self-control reap all these benefits because they engage in more state self-control, defined as the momentary act of resolving conflict between goals and fleeting desires. Despite its intuitive appeal, there are problems with extolling state self-control because of our love for trait self-control. First, empirical evidence suggests that individuals high in trait self-control do not engage in more state self-control but engage it less. Second, changes to state self-control do not reliably and sustainably improve people's outcomes, as least in the long-term. And third, despite the possibility of dramatic improvements in trait self-control, these improvements are often short lived, with people returning to their baseline trait level over longer time horizons. The roots of this problem are numerous: Imprecise and inaccurate naming of our constructs that lead to construct drift and contamination; ignoring the numerous other facets of conscientiousness like orderliness or industriousness; and not appreciating that traits are sometimes not reducible to states. We suggest that the celebrated benefits of trait self-control arise from mechanisms beyond state self-control and highlight the need for a broader conceptualization of self-control in psychological research and practical interventions.